Seeing as a Chinese edition has been published, in China, I don't think
they objected to the book. Its disqualification seems to have been at
the hands of a clueless and craven committee of Westerners.
The Opium Wars and in particular, the destruction of the Summer Palace,
are a staple of current Chinese criticism of the West. The period is
known as 'The Century of Humiliation'.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought it was good but not great. The story and characters were engaging,
and the magic system was original. One problem was that criticizing 19th- >>>century colonialism and especially the Opium Wars seemed too easy and
out of date. And nothing was said about China's conquests or suppression >>>of dissent.
Or other forms of oppression.
Those problems were EXACTLY why I was surprised it didn't get a nomination. >> Because those problems are very much advantages for promoting the book in
China. That's what I found so boggleworthy.
Seems strange to me. Maybe there's something that only Chinese people, or people very knowledgeable about Chinese culture, would object to.
A minor criticism is that, after Kuang makes a big deal about researching >>>Oxford slang of the 1830s, she gives her characters a lot of 20th- and >>>21st-century dialogue, which I found jarring.
I didn't find it that jarring because I am living in the middle of it, but >> I agree that it won't age well.
On 2024-03-12, jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought it was good but not great. The story and characters were engaging,
and the magic system was original. One problem was that criticizing 19th- >>>>century colonialism and especially the Opium Wars seemed too easy and >>>>out of date. And nothing was said about China's conquests or suppression >>>>of dissent.
Or other forms of oppression.
Those problems were EXACTLY why I was surprised it didn't get a nomination. >>> Because those problems are very much advantages for promoting the book in >>> China. That's what I found so boggleworthy.
Seems strange to me. Maybe there's something that only Chinese people, or
people very knowledgeable about Chinese culture, would object to.
I just finished reading it. The plot of _Babel_ is very much
pro-Chinese. But the theme is much more questionable. I would argue
that when you map the modern world onto the conflicts of _Babel_,
China is the best analog for Britain, even more than the United States.
While it's changing rapidly, China remains strongly xenophobic. Now
that they are expanding into the rest of the world, the racism and >nationalism of the xenophobia are a definite problem. The incident in
_Babel_ of British children encountering Robin (Chinese) for the first
time is one that is very often reported by foreigners in China today
when they stray outside their normal habitats. I don't know how true
it is anymore, but it is still being said that most Chinese have never >encountered a foreigner or some one of different race in person in
their lifetime.
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-03-12, jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought it was good but not great. The story and characters were engaging,
and the magic system was original. One problem was that criticizing 19th- >>>>>century colonialism and especially the Opium Wars seemed too easy and >>>>>out of date. And nothing was said about China's conquests or suppression >>>>>of dissent.
Or other forms of oppression.
Those problems were EXACTLY why I was surprised it didn't get a nomination.
Because those problems are very much advantages for promoting the book in >>>> China. That's what I found so boggleworthy.
Seems strange to me. Maybe there's something that only Chinese people, or >>> people very knowledgeable about Chinese culture, would object to.
I just finished reading it. The plot of _Babel_ is very much
pro-Chinese. But the theme is much more questionable. I would argue
that when you map the modern world onto the conflicts of _Babel_,
China is the best analog for Britain, even more than the United States.
While it's changing rapidly, China remains strongly xenophobic. Now
that they are expanding into the rest of the world, the racism and >>nationalism of the xenophobia are a definite problem. The incident in >>_Babel_ of British children encountering Robin (Chinese) for the first
time is one that is very often reported by foreigners in China today
when they stray outside their normal habitats. I don't know how true
it is anymore, but it is still being said that most Chinese have never >>encountered a foreigner or some one of different race in person in
their lifetime.
I find this difficult to believe. Leaving aside the ubiquity of
western entertainment in China, my folks have travelled
in China in the past and have reported no xenophobia (in
fact, due to their white hair, they were treated as
superstars in some smaller communities).
On 2024-03-22, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-03-12, jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought it was good but not great. The story and characters were engaging,
and the magic system was original. One problem was that criticizing 19th-
century colonialism and especially the Opium Wars seemed too easy and >>>>>>out of date. And nothing was said about China's conquests or suppression >>>>>>of dissent.
Or other forms of oppression.
Those problems were EXACTLY why I was surprised it didn't get a nomination.
Because those problems are very much advantages for promoting the book in >>>>> China. That's what I found so boggleworthy.
Seems strange to me. Maybe there's something that only Chinese people, or >>>> people very knowledgeable about Chinese culture, would object to.
I just finished reading it. The plot of _Babel_ is very much
pro-Chinese. But the theme is much more questionable. I would argue
that when you map the modern world onto the conflicts of _Babel_,
China is the best analog for Britain, even more than the United States.
While it's changing rapidly, China remains strongly xenophobic. Now
that they are expanding into the rest of the world, the racism and >>>nationalism of the xenophobia are a definite problem. The incident in >>>_Babel_ of British children encountering Robin (Chinese) for the first >>>time is one that is very often reported by foreigners in China today
when they stray outside their normal habitats. I don't know how true
it is anymore, but it is still being said that most Chinese have never >>>encountered a foreigner or some one of different race in person in
their lifetime.
I find this difficult to believe. Leaving aside the ubiquity of
western entertainment in China, my folks have travelled
in China in the past and have reported no xenophobia (in
fact, due to their white hair, they were treated as
superstars in some smaller communities).
Most of my discussions of racism in China have centered on black
racism so perhaps I was overly general. White skin is prized in
China, but incidents like this are very commonly reported by blacks.
A nice modern report from a black who loves China is
https://www.thinkchina.sg/being-black-china-loving-something-doesnt-always-love-you-back
Another older report: >https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/black-tourist-china
I haven't looked much at academic research, but just casually looking
now I encountered
https://africansinchina.net/race-racism-in-research/
which has lots of discussion and pointers. Eg.
contemporary research regarding online constructions of identity
in China reports that there is an overriding perception that
Africans/blacks are not only economically and culturally inferior,
but also a threat to the racial purity of the Chinese nation (Shen
2009; Lan 2016; Zhang 2019, Wang 2019).
(General point of this report, with a certain degree of validity, is
that "racism" is a Western concept)
China was tremendously insular in the past but is opening up rapidly.
Social attitudes are slow to change, though.
When I was taking Russian in the Army, one of our instructors (the >instructors were all people expelled/fleeing from the Soviet Union, so
a certain amount of bias may be presumed to be present in these
vignettes) that the students at Patrice Lumumba University, in Moscow,
were carefully kept away from ordinary Russians, who were racist to
the core.=20
During the Sochi games, their Patriarch asserted that Russians should
not mix with the locals or other non-Russians, not because it was
immoral, but because it would "dilute the racial purity of the Russian >people".
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
When I was taking Russian in the Army, one of our instructors (the >>instructors were all people expelled/fleeing from the Soviet Union, so
a certain amount of bias may be presumed to be present in these
vignettes) that the students at Patrice Lumumba University, in Moscow,
were carefully kept away from ordinary Russians, who were racist to
the core.=20
A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince >Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars >were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was >needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.
During the Sochi games, their Patriarch asserted that Russians should
not mix with the locals or other non-Russians, not because it was
immoral, but because it would "dilute the racial purity of the Russian >>people".
Well, yes, but there are plenty of other reasons for Russian insularity >besides just racism. Centuries of being taught that everyone in the
outside world is out to get you leaves attitudes behind that are hard to >erase.
On 23 Mar 2024 16:36:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:Tatars
When I was taking Russian in the Army, one of our instructors (the >>>instructors were all people expelled/fleeing from the Soviet Union, so
a certain amount of bias may be presumed to be present in these >>>vignettes) that the students at Patrice Lumumba University, in Moscow, >>>were carefully kept away from ordinary Russians, who were racist to
the core.=3D20
A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar=20 >>things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince >>Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how =
were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this =was
needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and >>the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.
During the Sochi games, their Patriarch asserted that Russians should
not mix with the locals or other non-Russians, not because it was >>>immoral, but because it would "dilute the racial purity of the Russian >>>people".
Well, yes, but there are plenty of other reasons for Russian insularity >>besides just racism. Centuries of being taught that everyone in the=20 >>outside world is out to get you leaves attitudes behind that are hard to >>erase.
Watching that historical documentary /Aleksander Nevskii/ shows them
attacked from both East and West. What's not to be paranoid about?
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On 23 Mar 2024 16:36:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
When I was taking Russian in the Army, one of our instructors (the >>>>instructors were all people expelled/fleeing from the Soviet Union, so >>>>a certain amount of bias may be presumed to be present in these >>>>vignettes) that the students at Patrice Lumumba University, in Moscow, >>>>were carefully kept away from ordinary Russians, who were racist to
the core.=3D20
A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar=20 >>>things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince >>>Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how = >>Tatars
were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this = >>was
needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and >>>the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.
During the Sochi games, their Patriarch asserted that Russians should >>>>not mix with the locals or other non-Russians, not because it was >>>>immoral, but because it would "dilute the racial purity of the Russian >>>>people".
Well, yes, but there are plenty of other reasons for Russian insularity >>>besides just racism. Centuries of being taught that everyone in the=20 >>>outside world is out to get you leaves attitudes behind that are hard to >>>erase.
Watching that historical documentary /Aleksander Nevskii/ shows them
Ahem.
There was a constant state of border wars for a thousand
years in eastern europe, which culminated in WWII. Rus
expanded and contracted throughout those years.
Assuming a soviet propaganda film is an accurate
depiction of historic Rus seems fraught.
attacked from both East and West. What's not to be paranoid about?
Eisenstein was pushing patriotism - how else but to extrapolate
from an historical episode and embellish it a bit for propoganda
purposes?
Since the Visigoths sacked Rome, everyone in europe has
invaded pretty much everyone else at some point in time
and the catholic church was usually either implicitly or
explicitly involved.
On 3/23/2024 12:36 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
When I was taking Russian in the Army, one of our instructors (the
instructors were all people expelled/fleeing from the Soviet Union, so
a certain amount of bias may be presumed to be present in these
vignettes) that the students at Patrice Lumumba University, in Moscow,
were carefully kept away from ordinary Russians, who were racist to
the core.=20
A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars >> were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was >> needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.
During the Sochi games, their Patriarch asserted that Russians should
not mix with the locals or other non-Russians, not because it was
immoral, but because it would "dilute the racial purity of the Russian
people".
Well, yes, but there are plenty of other reasons for Russian insularity
besides just racism. Centuries of being taught that everyone in the
outside world is out to get you leaves attitudes behind that are hard to
erase.
Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. It sits in the middle of a vast
plane without natural barriers; contrast to the US, which has a friendly
ally to the north, and a weak nation to the south, and vast ocean moats
in east and west.
Russian paranoia is based on bitter experience.
Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
On 3/26/2024 11:36 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:15:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 12:36 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
When I was taking Russian in the Army, one of our instructors (the
instructors were all people expelled/fleeing from the Soviet Union, so >>>>> a certain amount of bias may be presumed to be present in these
vignettes) that the students at Patrice Lumumba University, in Moscow, >>>>> were carefully kept away from ordinary Russians, who were racist to
the core.=20
A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince >>>> Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars >>>> were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was >>>> needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and >>>> the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.
During the Sochi games, their Patriarch asserted that Russians should >>>>> not mix with the locals or other non-Russians, not because it was
immoral, but because it would "dilute the racial purity of the Russian >>>>> people".
Well, yes, but there are plenty of other reasons for Russian insularity >>>> besides just racism. Centuries of being taught that everyone in the
outside world is out to get you leaves attitudes behind that are hard to >>>> erase.
Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. It sits in the middle of a vast
plane without natural barriers; contrast to the US, which has a friendly >>> ally to the north, and a weak nation to the south, and vast ocean moats
in east and west.
Russian paranoia is based on bitter experience.
Indeed.
But does it explain the racism? That's what it was brought up here to
do.
And does it excuse (or explain) their attempts to seize their
neighbors' land -- thus opening themselves up to retribution.
Russian Racism I can't speak on. Russia has a 'Manifest Destiny'
complex known as 'Russki Mir', or 'Russian World', in which it
desires to spread its Orthodox, authoritarian culture to the
rest of the world. [1]
[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
are/were guilty of similar hubris.
As for expansionism, when you have no geographical barriers
between you and your perceived enemies, one vital defense is
creating buffer zones, pushing out until you *do* reach
geographical barriers.
In article <utv0n1$1uobn$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
As for expansionism, when you have no geographical barriers
between you and your perceived enemies, one vital defense is
creating buffer zones, pushing out until you *do* reach
geographical barriers.
Expansion is counter-productive until the whole world is encompassed
because longer borders are correlated with more neighbours. An easier >solution is to place the entire Russian population in a single well
guarded fortress in some secret remote region.
On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
[snip-snip]
Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity version, the point remains:
By the late 1970s, the leader of this group [he top tier of the
intelligence services], Yuri Andropov, had privately come to the
quiet conclusion that the Soviet Union had lost the Cold War.
Ascending to national leadership in 1982, he and his disciples,
Konstantin Chernenko and Mikhail Gorbachev, began an internal
debate about how to manage defeat with honor.
Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and
Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).
On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
[snip-snip]
Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity version, the point remains:
Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).
In article <utvr5f$2el55$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 3/26/2024 1:14 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:And anyone else doing anything Russia didn't order them to do makes them
On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
[snip-snip]
Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it >>>> included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and >>>> other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred >>>> major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds >>>> of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity
version, the point remains:
Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.
feel less safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia2 if you start in 1800 as with Russia. (War of 1812.)
lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).
There were multiple British raids (and in fact the New Orleans campaign
was an attempted invasion) during 1814.
On 3/26/2024 1:14 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
[snip-snip]
Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity version, the point remains:
Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.
And anyone else doing anything Russia didn't order them to do makes them
feel less safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).
2 if you start in 1800 as with Russia. (War of 1812.)
On 3/27/2024 12:45 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <utvr5f$2el55$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 3/26/2024 1:14 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:And anyone else doing anything Russia didn't order them to do makes them >>> feel less safe.
On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
[snip-snip]
Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it >>>>> included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and >>>>> other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred >>>>> major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds >>>>> of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the >>>>> grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than >>>> a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity >>>> version, the point remains:
Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia2 if you start in 1800 as with Russia. (War of 1812.)
lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).
There were multiple British raids (and in fact the New Orleans campaign
was an attempted invasion) during 1814.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Columbus_(1916) is another
relevant episode.
TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
to be stopped.
On 3/26/2024 4:14 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
[snip-snip]
Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity
version, the point remains:
I have now read Chapter 6 of Zeihan's 2020 book _Disunited Nations_. He >makes a lot of bold claims like:
By the late 1970s, the leader of this group [he top tier of the intelligence services], Yuri Andropov, had privately come to the
quiet conclusion that the Soviet Union had lost the Cold War.
Ascending to national leadership in 1982, he and his disciples,
Konstantin Chernenko and Mikhail Gorbachev, began an internal
debate about how to manage defeat with honor.
The notion that Chernenko, Brezhnev's confidant for over 20 years, was >Andropov's disciple is ... truly revolutionary.
Or:
Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and
entered Berlin [April 1945].
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 3/26/2024 11:36 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:15:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 12:36 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
When I was taking Russian in the Army, one of our instructors (the >>>>>> instructors were all people expelled/fleeing from the Soviet Union, so >>>>>> a certain amount of bias may be presumed to be present in these
vignettes) that the students at Patrice Lumumba University, in Moscow, >>>>>> were carefully kept away from ordinary Russians, who were racist to >>>>>> the core.=20
A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince >>>>> Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars
were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was
needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and >>>>> the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.
During the Sochi games, their Patriarch asserted that Russians should >>>>>> not mix with the locals or other non-Russians, not because it was
immoral, but because it would "dilute the racial purity of the Russian >>>>>> people".
Well, yes, but there are plenty of other reasons for Russian insularity >>>>> besides just racism. Centuries of being taught that everyone in the >>>>> outside world is out to get you leaves attitudes behind that are hard to >>>>> erase.
Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. It sits in the middle of a vast >>>> plane without natural barriers; contrast to the US, which has a friendly >>>> ally to the north, and a weak nation to the south, and vast ocean moats >>>> in east and west.
Russian paranoia is based on bitter experience.
Indeed.
But does it explain the racism? That's what it was brought up here to
do.
And does it excuse (or explain) their attempts to seize their
neighbors' land -- thus opening themselves up to retribution.
Russian Racism I can't speak on. Russia has a 'Manifest Destiny'
complex known as 'Russki Mir', or 'Russian World', in which it
desires to spread its Orthodox, authoritarian culture to the
rest of the world. [1]
[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
are/were guilty of similar hubris.
Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:03:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
are/were guilty of similar hubris.
Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.
That's because it was pursuing its Manifest Destiny and Taking Up the
White Man's Burden while settling the country.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20 >>[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20 >>entered Berlin [April 1945].
OK, 46 months (4x12 - 2). This is essentially correct, as it was the
fall of Berlin that removed Hitler and led to the German surrender. It
is even more correct from the Soviet (and, no doubt, current Russian) >perspective.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
to be stopped.
I do not believe this is true at all. Putin considers the USSR to have
been weak, and Lenin as having made compromises that wouldn't have been
made by a stronger leader. Putin does not want to reconstruct the Soviet Union, he wants to reconstruct the Russian state of Ivan the Terrible. --scott
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
entered Berlin [April 1945].
OK, 46 months (4x12 - 2). This is essentially correct, as it was the
fall of Berlin that removed Hitler and led to the German surrender. It
is even more correct from the Soviet (and, no doubt, current Russian)
perspective.
The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt
I agree with Scott. Lend-Lease not only moved thousands of tanks and
other vehicles and planes into the Soviet Union, the Soviets also
learned how to build advanced weaponry.
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
Okay, how about Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico in
March, 1916?
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Scott. Lend-Lease not only moved thousands of tanks and
other vehicles and planes into the Soviet Union, the Soviets also
learned how to build advanced weaponry.
Although we definitely tried to avoid sharing anything too advanced with them. At the end of the war we were still shipping them tanks with
prewar British radio designs that were several generations behind what
we were using. Not that they needed any, with the T-34 being probably
the best tank of the war according to my father.
That incident with the B-29 was not the result of lend-lease but was
probably the greatest technology transfer to the Soviets short of the
atomic bomb.
Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
on behalf of the French government?
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20 >>>[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20 >>>entered Berlin [April 1945].
OK, 46 months (4x12 - 2). This is essentially correct, as it was the
fall of Berlin that removed Hitler and led to the German surrender. It
is even more correct from the Soviet (and, no doubt, current Russian) >>perspective.
The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.
On 3/27/2024 4:09 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Scott. Lend-Lease not only moved thousands of tanks and
other vehicles and planes into the Soviet Union, the Soviets also
learned how to build advanced weaponry.
Although we definitely tried to avoid sharing anything too advanced with
them. At the end of the war we were still shipping them tanks with
prewar British radio designs that were several generations behind what
we were using. Not that they needed any, with the T-34 being probably
the best tank of the war according to my father.
That incident with the B-29 was not the result of lend-lease but was
probably the greatest technology transfer to the Soviets short of the
atomic bomb.
The Soviet's also built the best ground attack aircraft of WW2. The
biggest advantage of Lend-Lease to the CCCP was in logistics. Most of
their trucks and railroad equipment was Lend-Lease.
On 3/26/2024 2:11 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <utv2pf$d1h$1@reader1.panix.com>,
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
There are 120 million Russians in Russia (not every person in
Russia is Russian). Each Russian is about one tenth of a cubic
metre. 12 million cubic metres is a cube less than 220 metres on
an edge. Even if we double the volume, that is a cube less than
three football fields on a side. Easy to hide in mountains or
deep beneath the sea.
Sounds like a good start.
This might be the Finnish briefing from above; I found it very interesting:
https://ricochet.com/1214468/finnish-intelligence-officer-explains-the-russian-mindset/
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross
the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.
In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
on behalf of the French government?
That lightning-fast campaign was a 1.3 million man army, supposedly the >largest army ever put together. The Nazis almost made it to Moscow
before the snow but got bogged down in Ukraine destroying 12,000 ???
villages and killing 12 million ??? Ukrainians. I guess that the Nazis >wanted to make sure that they could retreat without getting sniped at
the entire way back like Napoleon's army that lost 400,000 men
retreating from Moscow.
On 3/28/2024 11:02 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:14:01 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20 >>>>> [June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20 >>>>> entered Berlin [April 1945].
OK, 46 months (4x12 - 2). This is essentially correct, as it was the
fall of Berlin that removed Hitler and led to the German surrender. It >>>> is even more correct from the Soviet (and, no doubt, current Russian)
perspective.
The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.
Actually, an article on lend-lease in one of the military history
magazines I subscribe to concluded that, without lend-lease, it would
indeed have taken a year longer for the Soviet Union to defeat Germany
in the East and occupy Berlin.
But, of course, had Germany been in the war that long, the first
atomic bomb would have gone to Berlin, not Hiroshima. Berlin would
never have been occupied (well, not until the radiation was low
enough).
The Germans planned on a lightning-fast campaign that would seize
everything on the run and end the war in the East before the snow
fell. This turned out to be overly optimisitic; one might even say
"pollyannish". Lack of Lend-Lease would not have changed this; it was
a consequence of the Five Ps:
Poor Planning Prevents Proper Performance
That lightning-fast campaign was a 1.3 million man army, supposedly the >largest army ever put together. The Nazis almost made it to Moscow
before the snow but got bogged down in Ukraine destroying 12,000 ??? >villages and killing 12 million ??? Ukrainians. I guess that the Nazis >wanted to make sure that they could retreat without getting sniped at
the entire way back like Napoleon's army that lost 400,000 men
retreating from Moscow.
A book I read recently asserted that, by 1914 (it was written in
1896), the world would be a shambles, all states would be dissolved,
all denomination likewise, and the world would be ruled from
Jerusalem, by a partnership between the Saxons (that is, the Ten Lost
Tribes) and the Jews (as junior partners, of course).
Believing you are God's Chosen People probably fed into WASP racism,
but it didn't cause it.
There were multiple British raids (and in fact the New Orleans campaign
was an attempted invasion) during 1814.
[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
are/were guilty of similar hubris.
Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.
Well, if you count the Aleutians, then you have to count Pearl Harbor &
The Philippines.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
to be stopped.
I do not believe this is true at all. Putin considers the USSR to have
been weak, and Lenin as having made compromises that wouldn't have been
made by a stronger leader. Putin does not want to reconstruct the Soviet >Union, he wants to reconstruct the Russian state of Ivan the Terrible. >--scott
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:03:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
are/were guilty of similar hubris.
Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.
You mean like vs. Spain or Mexico? Or dozens of aboriginal tribes? Or
Hawaii? (I'll grant - the US paid $$$ for French Louisiana and Alaska)
At least in terms of square mileage the US took more territory than
anybody but Russia (their main gain being Siberia) and with the
exception of the Phillipines - kept it all. (On the Phillipines, in
1941 Manila was considered the 6th biggest city in the United States
and many Americans in 1946 were shocked that the Filipinos preferred >independence to statehood)
I agree with Scott. Lend-Lease not only moved thousands of tanks and
other vehicles and planes into the Soviet Union, the Soviets also
learned how to build advanced weaponry.
On 3/27/2024 10:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:That is debatable. Lend-lease helped but even without it there is good >reason to believe the CCCP would have at least regained all their lost >territory. It just would have taken longer and a larger body count.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.
I distinctly remember the line "You know the
'rockets' red glare? the bombs bursting in air? Well those were OUR
rockets and OUR bombs - but we don't advertise that much to our
American friends these days!"
On 27 Mar 2024 13:19:56 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
to be stopped.
I do not believe this is true at all. Putin considers the USSR to have >>been weak, and Lenin as having made compromises that wouldn't have been >>made by a stronger leader. Putin does not want to reconstruct the Soviet >>Union, he wants to reconstruct the Russian state of Ivan the Terrible. >>--scott
If that is true then what is Putin doing invading Ukraine?
Since as the map from Britannica shows: >https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-the-Terrible
while Ivan's Russia was a fairly big place it DIDN'T include St
Petersburg, the Baltic states, Belorus or nearly all of Ukraine.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:03:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>wrote:
[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
are/were guilty of similar hubris.
Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.
You mean like vs. Spain or Mexico? Or dozens of aboriginal tribes? Or >>Hawaii? (I'll grant - the US paid $$$ for French Louisiana and Alaska)
At least in terms of square mileage the US took more territory than
anybody but Russia (their main gain being Siberia) and with the
exception of the Phillipines - kept it all. (On the Phillipines, in
1941 Manila was considered the 6th biggest city in the United States
and many Americans in 1946 were shocked that the Filipinos preferred >>independence to statehood)
Note that I specified 1895 or so. The spanish american war in 1898
changed that, and WWII (isolationism still existed up to the
first WWI).
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 08:19:41 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
A book I read recently asserted that, by 1914 (it was written in
1896), the world would be a shambles, all states would be dissolved,
all denomination likewise, and the world would be ruled from
Jerusalem, by a partnership between the Saxons (that is, the Ten Lost >>Tribes) and the Jews (as junior partners, of course).
Believing you are God's Chosen People probably fed into WASP racism,
but it didn't cause it.
So was this "British Israelism" (a la Herbert W Armstrong but not
invented by him) or something else?
These days it mostly exists in the song "Jerusalem" and practically--
nowhere else in the UK - though I heard of one branch of the
philosophy / theology including the United States as part of "the
promise"
On 4/2/2024 6:08 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2024 13:19:56 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
to be stopped.
I do not believe this is true at all. Putin considers the USSR to have >>>> been weak, and Lenin as having made compromises that wouldn't have been >>>> made by a stronger leader. Putin does not want to reconstruct the Soviet >>>> Union, he wants to reconstruct the Russian state of Ivan the Terrible. >>>> --scott
If that is true then what is Putin doing invading Ukraine?
Since as the map from Britannica shows:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-the-Terrible
while Ivan's Russia was a fairly big place it DIDN'T include St
Petersburg, the Baltic states, Belorus or nearly all of Ukraine.
Oh, I don't think he wants to stop there. I don't think Ivan did either.
But it is true that Peter the Great is the person that Mr. Putin is so
frequently quoting and making comparisons with, even if his policies seem
more like those of Ivan's.
--scott
Putin has said "Russia borders do not end."
https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/1746784252312891463?s=20
There's a notion in Russia that its 'superior culture'
should be expanded first to any place which had or had
a Russian presence, and later to everywhere. That
includes all of former the USSR and Warsaw Pact, Alaska,
California, and many western European countries.
Muskovy delenda est.
On 4/2/2024 2:11 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 08:19:41 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
A book I read recently asserted that, by 1914 (it was written in
1896), the world would be a shambles, all states would be dissolved,
all denomination likewise, and the world would be ruled from
Jerusalem, by a partnership between the Saxons (that is, the Ten Lost
Tribes) and the Jews (as junior partners, of course).
Believing you are God's Chosen People probably fed into WASP racism,
but it didn't cause it.
So was this "British Israelism" (a la Herbert W Armstrong but not
invented by him) or something else?
These days it mostly exists in the song "Jerusalem" and practically
nowhere else in the UK - though I heard of one branch of the
philosophy / theology including the United States as part of "the
promise"
Really? Blake wrote the poem used as lyrics in 1808. British Israelism
came quite a bit later, and didn't gain much traction until the 1870s.
Actually, I think it existed up to WWII as well.
There is a /reason/ that the attack on Pearl Harbor is credited with
bringing the USA into the war in Europe.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:14:27 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2024 2:11 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 08:19:41 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
A book I read recently asserted that, by 1914 (it was written in
1896), the world would be a shambles, all states would be dissolved,
all denomination likewise, and the world would be ruled from
Jerusalem, by a partnership between the Saxons (that is, the Ten Lost
Tribes) and the Jews (as junior partners, of course).
Believing you are God's Chosen People probably fed into WASP racism,
but it didn't cause it.
So was this "British Israelism" (a la Herbert W Armstrong but not
invented by him) or something else?
These days it mostly exists in the song "Jerusalem" and practically
nowhere else in the UK - though I heard of one branch of the
philosophy / theology including the United States as part of "the
promise"
Really? Blake wrote the poem used as lyrics in 1808. British Israelism
came quite a bit later, and didn't gain much traction until the 1870s.
Obviously I know when Blake was writing his poetry but no question it
was adopted by the BI types as "theirs".
I never did understand how it became a political text (notably by the
British Labour party) having first encountered it in Chariots of Fire.
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 08:25:55 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Actually, I think it existed up to WWII as well.
There is a /reason/ that the attack on Pearl Harbor is credited with >>bringing the USA into the war in Europe.
Really? I would have thought the most important thing of that week was >Hitler's declaration of war on the United States which certainly
directly brought the USA into the war in Europe.
It was basically Hitler's submarine war against the US in the spring
of 1942 that really brought home to the US what they were fighting
for.
No question the soc.history.what-if types have repeatedly debated in
the 25+ years I've been part of it what would have happened following
the US declaration of war on Japan if Hitler had NOT declared on the
United States - and the Axis DIDN'T commit Germany to declaring war on >anybody UNLESS Japan were attacked which 7 Dec 1941 rendered moot.
Without the German declaration FDR had a problem since he and
Churchill had agreed to "Germany first" as early as the Placentia Bay >conference.
They then give their song, starting out with a rousing "The British,
the British, the British are best, so up with the British and down
with the rest". Well, that's how I remember the lyrics, anyway.
Still, American naval unpreparedness to counter the U-boat menace was
a strong stimulus to securing the North Atlantic.=20
No question the soc.history.what-if types have repeatedly debated in
the 25+ years I've been part of it what would have happened following
the US declaration of war on Japan if Hitler had NOT declared on the
United States - and the Axis DIDN'T commit Germany to declaring war on >>anybody UNLESS Japan were attacked which 7 Dec 1941 rendered moot.
That's an interesting alt-history point. I suspect that "the enemy of
my friend is my enemy" would have brought us into the European
conflict eventually.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:14:27 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2024 2:11 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 08:19:41 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
A book I read recently asserted that, by 1914 (it was written in
1896), the world would be a shambles, all states would be dissolved, >>>>> all denomination likewise, and the world would be ruled from
Jerusalem, by a partnership between the Saxons (that is, the Ten Lost >>>>> Tribes) and the Jews (as junior partners, of course).
Believing you are God's Chosen People probably fed into WASP racism, >>>>> but it didn't cause it.
So was this "British Israelism" (a la Herbert W Armstrong but not
invented by him) or something else?
These days it mostly exists in the song "Jerusalem" and practically
nowhere else in the UK - though I heard of one branch of the
philosophy / theology including the United States as part of "the
promise"
Really? Blake wrote the poem used as lyrics in 1808. British Israelism
came quite a bit later, and didn't gain much traction until the 1870s.
Obviously I know when Blake was writing his poetry but no question it
was adopted by the BI types as "theirs".
I never did understand how it became a political text (notably by the
British Labour party) having first encountered it in Chariots of Fire.
It was a huge favorite in England long before the film. It's been called >England's second national anthem'. It was my school hymn back in the
60s, and hearing a thousand people singing it in Wells Cathedral during
our carol service is a favorite memory.
Pt
On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 08:36:36 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
They then give their song, starting out with a rousing "The British,
the British, the British are best, so up with the British and down
with the rest". Well, that's how I remember the lyrics, anyway.
Such a great song - and in the verses you don't cite they insult just
about every other nation in Europe.
Oh and by the way - the reason you had trouble finding it was that
it's actually "The English, the English..." rather than the British.
Mark me down as a Flanders and Swann fan.
Oh and by the way - the reason you had trouble finding it was that
it's actually "The English, the English..." rather than the British.
That makes perfect sense, given that some of those other nations are
the Welsh, the Scots, and the Irish.
Mark me down as a Flanders and Swann fan.
/The Complete Flanders & Swann/ is one of my most treasured CDs.
--=20
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:14:27 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2024 2:11 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 08:19:41 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
A book I read recently asserted that, by 1914 (it was written in
1896), the world would be a shambles, all states would be dissolved, >>>>> all denomination likewise, and the world would be ruled from
Jerusalem, by a partnership between the Saxons (that is, the Ten Lost >>>>> Tribes) and the Jews (as junior partners, of course).
Believing you are God's Chosen People probably fed into WASP racism, >>>>> but it didn't cause it.
So was this "British Israelism" (a la Herbert W Armstrong but not
invented by him) or something else?
These days it mostly exists in the song "Jerusalem" and practically
nowhere else in the UK - though I heard of one branch of the
philosophy / theology including the United States as part of "the
promise"
Really? Blake wrote the poem used as lyrics in 1808. British Israelism
came quite a bit later, and didn't gain much traction until the 1870s.
Obviously I know when Blake was writing his poetry but no question it
was adopted by the BI types as "theirs".
I never did understand how it became a political text (notably by the
British Labour party) having first encountered it in Chariots of Fire.
It was a huge favorite in England long before the film. It's been called >England's second national anthem'. It was my school hymn back in the
60s, and hearing a thousand people singing it in Wells Cathedral during
our carol service is a favorite memory.
Pt
It was a huge favorite in England long before the film. It's been called >>>> England's second national anthem'. It was my school hymn back in the
60s, and hearing a thousand people singing it in Wells Cathedral during >>>> our carol service is a favorite memory.
And in modern times was adopted by the British Labour party as their
anthem. I've never heard it sung live but have heard numerous
recordings of it - not sure if I heard it before Chariots of Fire or
not.
I first encountered it on ELP's _Brain Salad Surgery_, which came out well >> before _Chariots of Fire_ did. AAMOF, I've never seen "Chariots".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Salad_Surgery>
Until this thread, the only place I'd known of it at all was the ELP
version. Also until this thread, I didn't know it was in Chariots of
Fire (because I also haven't seen it, but the movie instrumental theme
is a nice piece of work).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 06:34:29 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,635 |